There is a growing scholarly consensus that Latin American regionalism has entered a new phase. For some observers, the increasing complexity of regional cooperation initiatives renders collective action ineffective. For others, the creation of new schemes signals a “posthegemonic” moment that has opened a space for collaboration on social issues. Both camps attribute this shift to the absence of the United States and the presence of left-leaning governments. By contrast, this study demonstrates that this agenda is not new, nor has the United States impeded similar initiatives in the past. In fact, the United States was instrumental in expanding regional cooperation on social issues in the early twentieth century. Instead, this article argues that agenda shifts are best explained by an evolving consensus about the role of the state. The “new agenda” is in line with historical attempts by governments to use regionalism to bolster their own domestic reforms.

No abstract

The present study revisits the position accorded to Latin American states in the conventional account of the expansion of international society. Drawing on English School theory and legal history, it develops a critique of the ‘standard of civilisation’, contending that the boundaries of international society were much more malleable and diffuse than the conventional narrative suggests. The argument is illustrated with reference to the historical experience of Latin American states: despite the profound impact that European colonisation had on the region, the marginalisation of Latin American states within international society was commonly framed in civilisational terms. Rather than taking their ‘western’ identity and thus membership for granted, the paper demonstrates the role that civilisational rhetoric played in the making of Latin America’s place in the heterarchical international order of the ‘long 19th century’. The article concludes by discussing some implications for theorising the evolution of international society.

European politics at the turn of the 19th century saw a dramatic reduction in the number and diversity of polities as the territorial nation-state emerged as the dominant form of political organization. The transformation had a profound impact on the periphery. The study examines how embracing the principle of territoriality transformed relations between settler societies and indigenous peoples in South America. As this shift coincided with independence from Spain, Creole elites rapidly dismantled the remnants of imperial heteronomy, ending centuries of inter-cultural diplomacy. The study illustrates this shift in the case of the “Southern frontier,” where Spain had maintained a practice of treaty making with the Mapuche people since the mid-17th century. This long-standing practice broke down shortly after Chile gained independence in 1818. What followed was a policy of coercive assimilation through military conquest and forced displacement — a policy that settler societies implemented elsewhere in the 19th century. In contrast to explanations that emphasize the spread of capitalist agriculture and racist ideologies, this study argues that territoriality spelled the end of inter-cultural diplomacy along the “Southern frontier.”

Hierarchy is a persistent feature of international politics. Existing accounts recognize that there are many ways in which actors can stand in relation to one another. Yet they struggle to make sense of this complexity. This study considers Max Weber’s contribution to understanding international hierarchy. It discusses three ideal types of stratification based on the distribution of capabilities (class), estimations of honor and prestige (status), and command relationships (authority). Following the neo-Weberian approach, these dimensions matter because they make social action intelligible. Furthermore, Weber clarifies how class and status are connected and how these two dimensions relate to authority through the process of ‘social closure’. The study concludes that scholars who focus exclusively on authority structures miss the fact that authority typically derives from other forms of stratification: although based on different logics of social stratification, class and status hierarchies often coalesce into (legitimate) authority.